The Brewster....

[Krusty]

The original batch of F2A's were sent to the Navy in June 1939. After receiving a small number of planes out of 54, the reamining 44 were immediately rejected and sold to Finland. These aircraft remained in service until 1944, equipping squadrons No. 24 and No.26.

This original batch had only a 950hp Wright XR-1820-22 Cyclone radial.

Now, consider that the following

P40B: Engine: Allison V-1710-33 (-33?) - 1090hp
Brewster: Engine: Wright Cyclone XR-1820-22 - 950hp

P40B: Normal loaded weight: 7,352 lbs. (AH2 stats page)
Brewster: F2A-3 max takeoff: 7,159lbs. (closest version I could find, subtract a few hundred lbs for armor to get an idea of weight)

P40B: Fuselage type: low-drag, inline engine, streamlined fuselage
Brewster: Fuselage type: high-drag, blunt radial engine, bulky fuselage

P40B: Wing area: 236 sq ft.
Brewster: Wing area: 208.9 sq ft.

I conclude:

P40B: lower drag, higher power, larger wing area, about equal weight.
Brewster: higher drad, lower power, lesser wing area, about equal weight.

Thus, once again proving the Brewster was not the best thing there was. Turning is dependent on many things, but 2 very important things in determining rate of turn include surplus power and wing size. The P40B, bad as it is in AH, actually beats the Brewster in these two areas.

Compared to the FM2,

Engine: P&W R-1830-86 Twin Wasp -- 1,200hp
Max Takeoff: 8,762lbs.
Fuselage type: semi-streamlined radial
Wing area: 260 sq ft.

So the FM-2 has more wing area, more horsepower, and less drag than the Brewster. Hell, it has more wing area and more horsepower than the P-40B!!!! It's a bit draggier than the P40B, being a radial engine, but the cowling is more streamlined than the Brewster's, as is the tail of the fuselage (just by eyeballing it). It is about 1000 lbs heavier, but this does not handicap it much, it seems.

It seems to me that the P40B is a better replacement for the Brewster than the FM-2 is. The P40B is still better than the Brewster, and the FM-2 is ever still better than the P40B.

In WW2 Finland it was the pilots, the targets, and the situations that gave this plane a high kill ratio. It wasn't its performance.

We don't need to sub the FM-2 for brewster because it's far far better than the brewster ever was.

I thought about this while fighting Yeager in his P40B, and then did some stats checking on various planes.

[Grits]

Originally posted by Krusty
Compared to the FM2,

Engine: P&W R-1830-86 Twin Wasp -- 1,200hp
Max Takeoff: 8,762lbs.
Fuselage type: semi-streamlined radial
Wing area: 260 sq ft.

FM-2 used a 1350hp Wright Cyclone, not a P&W.

I agree with your conclusion, FM-2 is FAR FAR FAR too good to sub for the Brewster.

[Krusty]

Did it? I must have pulled the stats for an early FM-2... let me do some more pulling

EDIT:

1,350hp  Wright R-1820-56 "Cyclone 9" -- yep, you're right!

[Grits]

Which makes your point even more strongly. I've always said the FM-2 was too uber to sub for the Brewster, the problem is, what do we use instead?

[Krusty]

Well.. hell! Even the P40B is too good to sub for the brewster!!

Much as I love the Fins and the Fin/Rus map setup, there's really nothing we can suggest that won't piss the Fins off.

I'd personally suggest, after looking up these stats, that the P40B (even though better) is fairly close, compared to the other planes AH has. You'll be hard-pressed to find anything worse than the P40B. SBD, perhaps? Only it's got a tail gun, question is -- will that tail gun matter? Can folks even get kills with it? Is it a non-issue?.

EDIT: The A6M5b has similar speeds, going by the AH charts, but it's got cannon which put it into another bracket entirely, and I doubt the Brewster could turn that well. Remember that even though slightly heavier, the later models had a 1200hp engine and it was still 100% unacceptable vs the Japanese aircraft, this when the P39 was used through most of the war, and the P40 was used through most of the war -- the Brewster was instantly rejected. That means it couldn't even compete with the zeros (or hell, Ki4x series, either).

The only solution is for HTC to model the Brewster. LOL Maybe after the B17 is redone??

[StarOfAfrica2]

Whats wrong with the SBD compared to the Brewster?  Yes the SBD had the higher rated 1200 hp Cyclone that the F2A-1 lacked, but it weighs a good 2000 lbs more.  In defense of the underpowered Brewster, I understand the Finns stripped a good deal of weight out of the birds and made them better performers than they were when recieved?

[StarOfAfrica2]

And really when it comes to the FA2-2 it depends on POV.  I've seen it described as "very nimble" and a fine plane.  Not "instantly rejected" as you say.  I take most sources with a grain of salt unless they are quoting actual test data and even then I'd like to see original paperwork.  Not some author's opinions with doctored data written to sell books.

According to the Naval Historical Center the problem with the F2A-2 was the landing gear and maintenance problems, not performance.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Grits
Which makes your point even more strongly. I've always said the FM-2 was too uber to sub for the Brewster, the problem is, what do we use instead?

Good point.  One of the things to be cautious about is fooling around with what is probably the best-liked plane set in AvA.  Not necessarily the one we're running this week, but the traditional FinnRus set.

I suspect that the original sub of the FM2 for the Buffalo was made without a whole lot of thought.  Back then the FM2 was a less-well-known plane than it is now, and someone had good evidence that the Finns' Buffalo was a stripped-down hot rod version of the pathetic creature the British in Malaya and the Americans at Midway got slaughtered in.  Whatever, it worked, and has worked very well over the years.  The FM2 is the anti-Hurri IIC.

So, it's one of those "Sound of Thunder" Ray Bradbury issues.

- oldman

[plank]

Originally posted by Oldman731
Good point.  One of the things to be cautious about is fooling around with what is probably the best-liked plane set in AvA.  Not necessarily the one we're running this week, but the traditional FinnRus set.

I suspect that the original sub of the FM2 for the Buffalo was made without a whole lot of thought.  Back then the FM2 was a less-well-known plane than it is now, and someone had good evidence that the Finns' Buffalo was a stripped-down hot rod version of the pathetic creature the British in Malaya and the Americans at Midway got slaughtered in.  Whatever, it worked, and has worked very well over the years.  The FM2 is the anti-Hurri IIC.

So, it's one of those "Sound of Thunder" Ray Bradbury issues.

- oldman

Crud, I stepped on a bug. Meh, big deal, what could possibly go wrong?

[storch]

there is a good article on the FM-2 in the april issue of "flight journal" it's titled the wilder wildcat.

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Grits
Which makes your point even more strongly. I've always said the FM-2 was too uber to sub for the Brewster, the problem is, what do we use instead?

Why cant the F4F wildcat sub for the Brewster?

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Oldman731
Good point.  One of the things to be cautious about is fooling around with what is probably the best-liked plane set in AvA.

- oldman

I'd say it was the best liked setup of the CT. It remains to be seen if it's the best liked setup of the AvA. Since the name change, and the addition of the RPS , the popularity of this setup may not be the same as it was in the past.

Plus why sub at all ? Theres no subbing allowed in any of the PTO's. Run it with the historical time of our planeset, or don't run it at all. Or allow subs for other setups.


Storch said......... "there is a good article on the FM-2 in the april issue of "flight journal" it's titled the wilder wildcat."

I just happened to read that artical at lunch today. It was pretty interesting.

[Grits]

Originally posted by Airscrew
Why cant the F4F wildcat sub for the Brewster?

It could, and I have suggested that several times. The only real issue there is the 6x50cal where the Brewster only had 4x50cal.

[Wmaker]

Too beat to even try to reason with some of you...

I'll just quote myself...

Originally posted by Wmaker
FM-2 isn't close to a Brewster. Nor is a Hurricane IIC close to the Hurricane IIB's which the finns faced. I truly hope people here can figure out the difference between 12x.303s or 2xberezins/2xShwaks and 4 Hispanos.

Also, at least in the lower alts Brewsters were actually faster than the Hurricane Mk.II which surface quality deteoriated rather quickly in harsh front conditions. Brewsters' manufacture quality was (considering the Corsair-epsode) surprisingly good and they retained their performance very well. Granted, in the Lappland War which was fought against the germans during the spring of '45 they started to be worn out after close to FOUR years of combat flying and 1 year of peace time service. Few of them even served couple years after the war.

I don't think FM-2 is a good sub for the Brewster. I also do think that when the plane set just isn't there an RPS might not be such a good idea. But whining about the horrible unjustice which the FM-2 supposedly represents almost leaves me speechless. FM-2/Hurri2C is a very close match up.

It would be awesome to have a real Brewster in the game with Ratas and Tchaikas to fly against. Just the maneuverability of those planes would send the fan factor through the roof!

Few facts:

- FM-2 was chosen for it's superficial resemblance and it had the same gun package

- P-40B wasn't chosen as it was inline engined plane no recemblance what so ever

- P-40B was used by the soviets and thus given to their planeset

- La-5FN was only used in small numbers in the finnish fron only in the end of the continuation war. In the summer of '44 La-5/5Fs, Yak-9s and P-39s were the backbone of the aireal offensive in Stalin's Fourth.

- La-5FN is clearly superior to the La-5 it subs (and it both out runs/out turns both G-2 and G-6)

- Yak-9T subs Yak-9/9D their armament is very different

- Hurricane 2C subs Hurricane IIB and IIA and is a good match for the FM-2

- FM-2 was taken as a sub in Fin-Rus -times when there wasn't any RPS and La-5FNs and Yak-9Ts were in use


I DO think that RPS is bad idea with this plane set because the early war planeset just isn't there. BUT obviously panzzer and the other CM's were in
"a dare if you do/dare if you don't -situation". If they wouldn't have continued with RPS in the Finland -map a major crying/moaning/whining would have ensued and the results of continuing it can be seen here...major crying/moaning/whining. Personally, I would have wanted to fly 109Gs against the "too good" La5FNs the whole time.

This image some people are trying to paint that "the finns" somehow collectively made this "evil biased plot" to include the "too good" Brewster "so they could win easier" is quite entertaining. Personally I'm quite tired of hearing "the finns this, the finns that -generalations". What if I would start saying "americans here do this/that"?

What (and here I go...) "the finns"  want in this came than anything is the real cute Brewster to fly...even if it means flying it against hispano equipped Hurricanes only.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Wmaker


This image some people are trying to paint that "the finns" somehow collectively made this "evil biased plot" to include the "too good" Brewster "so they could win easier" is quite entertaining. Personally I'm quite tired of hearing "the finns this, the finns that -generalations". What if I would start saying "americans here do this/that"?

 

The only reference to"Finns" in this thread is about how the "Finns" Buffalo is modified from the American F2A. If your accusing Americans of trying to paint some evil Finnish plot.............. Then I would suggest you are already saying "americans here do this/ that."